59 



simple fxuiuiiuttii.il of the physical appearance of the goods, noting especially the 

 maturity and firmness of the peas and the consistency of the liquor. Soaked peas 

 usually appear more or less broken and mashed and the most matured show well 

 de\ ( -loped cotyledons and are packed in a liquor which is cloudy and starchy in 

 appc'arai; 



The maturity of the peas, however, can not be taken as conclusive evidence that 

 t hr -aim 1 hu\ e been soaked, because many well developed peas, very similar in appear- 

 an< to those soaked before canning, are packed as numbers 4 and 5, Early June and 

 Telephone peas, and are not soaked. Neither can the appearance of the liquor be 

 iiuully relied upon. .-ince the most mature, fresh peas are sometimes found in a liquor 

 which i- not dear and is more or less starchy; hence it is desirable to obtain data 

 which would Mibstaiitiate conclusions drawn from the physical appearance of the 

 goods. To this end 7:i miscellaneous samples of peas have been examined by the 

 referee and on all these the weight of the liquor and drained substance, and the per- 

 centage of water in the drained substance were determined. These determinations 

 alone are sufficient to di-t iii'jui-h the fresh peas and some of the more succulent grades 

 from the soaked goods, the chief difficulty arising in differentiating between the soaked 

 uooil.- and the more matured peas put up in the fresh state. In the water content the 

 latter did not differ very widely from the soaked peas. As will be seen from the table, 

 the a tent of water in 24 samples of soaked peas is 71.98 per cent, and the 



average of 18 samples of Early June and similar grades is 77.52 per cent. The highest 

 moisture content of the soaked peas, however, exceeds that of the driest of the Early 

 June | ea.-, .-<> that there is an overlapping of the results which makes it impossible to 

 pronounce a conclusive opinion from these determinations alone. 



More definite eondu-ion-, however, may be drawn by also determining the crude 

 starch. For thi- determination 1"> grams of the ground drained material were hydro- 

 ly/.ed ly hydrochloric acid according to the official method and all copper-reducing 

 .nice calculated as starch. The average of 16 results on soaked peas gave 14.45 

 per cent, the hi-hest figure being 18.19 per cent and the lowest value 11.08 per cent, 

 while tin- average starch content of 1 1 samples of matured peas canned in the fresh state 

 was 10.87 per cent 11. re airain is an overlapping, the lowest results on the soaked 

 peas, 11. 0> low the highest value obtained on the fresh grade, 14.38 



ni This last sample, however, was probably misbranded, as will appear later. 

 The average starch content on soaked peas, as far as determined, is approximately 4 

 nt hi-rher than that of Karly Junes and those of similar quality. There is some 

 difference, furthermore, in the specific gravity of the two grades, that of Early Junes 

 runnin- from 1 . 10 to l.l I, whereas the values obtained for soaked peas vary from 1.12 

 to 1 .!;. Takinirall these figures into consideration, it seems possible by the determi- 

 nation of the water, starch, and specific gravity of the drained substance to obtain 

 values which will supplement the conclusions drawn from the physical appearance 

 of the good- 



The table iriv.-s in detail the results obtained. Samples numbered 81 and 82 are 

 interest in- in furnishing a test of the method suggested. These samples were labeled 

 Karly June peas, but both had the appearance of having been soaked. These were 

 run at the same time as numbers To to 80, inclusive, and it will be seen how the starch 

 content compares with the other samples labeled in the same way. By these values 

 alone ami the appearance of the goods it would be quite safe to conclude that they 

 had been soaked. Then- is also a difference in the specific gravity, which is some- 

 what higher than in the other samples. This conclusion is further strengthened by 

 the amount of water which is less than in the other samples. 



The work Mem to justify further investigation along the same line by the succeed- 

 ing referee. 



